"As a rule, we're at least a bit more informed on things, no matter our actual political stances."
ROTFLMAO Somebody mod this guy +1 funny
A "bit more" is a hard to define amount of increase. However, I submit the recent studies and polls that have made front page news at slashdot where a majority of the population couldn't name the vice president, speaker of the house or senate, and a few other things. Most of Slashdot could name those and a little more which would in my opinion, qualify as a "bit more" informed.
As for the American people going along with it, there were polls where the public agreed with the TSP use when it was critical enough to get bush reelected. Something like 51% supported the use of wiretaps without warrants between terrorists and sympathizers in the US. there was evena poll that showed 52% to 38% with 9% unsure, stating that Americans thought the US government "should wiretap mosques to try to keep an eye out for radical preaching by Muslim clerics"
I think his comment was appropriate, if not just at critical point in history to maintain the actions.
I'm not sure I would limit it to her type of Rhetoric.
It seems to be a problem stemming from more then just her side of politics and her type of bashing. For the last seven to eight years, we have heard the same BS claims against a number of people across the political isle. In short, associating it with Ann Coulter is a bit polarizing and leaving some with a hint of justification because they don't agree with her politics. It a far wider problem then that.
Can I put all of your friends on trial for treason too?
I'm going to assume you already know the answers to that. I'm just going to say what I find troubling is that the people who want to stretch any perceived threat against any perceived liberty also attempt to claim a sound knowledge of the Constitution to back their claims up. Just the other day, I had someone call me a liar when they said "any violation or misinterpretation of the constitution was treason" and I quoted article III section 3 for them. Then I suggested they better take another look at their opinions on things like the second amendment, the federalist papers and so on.
Anyways, it's specific, waging war against the united states makes an enemy and aiding and comforting them with two witnesses or a confession in open court is treason. Infringement on their liberties are not treason in any way and it doesn't make someone an enemy. To those who say it is, they should look at the infringement on liberties that ended slavery, prohibition, and almost all of the amendments after the tenth. I mean every amendment restricts something that was freely allowed (liberty) by at least some individuals except for the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments. Even the 21st amendment that repealed prohibition took interstate commerce in the effects of alcohol and left it to the states to discriminate against instead of congress where the constitution previously placed all interstate commerce regulations. The 26th amendment may be included in that exception because it denied states from denying the legal voting age to below above 18 but it still allows a state to set lower standards. If we really wanted to push the subject of attacks on liberty being treason, government health would be an infringement on liberty (because I should be able to determine my own health) as well as public smoking bans, trans fat bans, and many other things that quite a few people consider a good idea.
I don't think you were pushing that agenda but was in opposition of the idea. I just wanted to show how silly it could get. And to all those who want to support the idea that restrictions on liberty is treason, NO, it wouldn't be a meaningless strawman attack, it's the very concept applied with the definition of liberty.
Perhaps you could point to the post your referencing. I looked and saw several comments of yours in this total thread but none that seem to explain anything to what you posted or suggest what you were attempting to convey.
Well, unless your talking about the other post to me you made which ironically is after this part of the thread (probably how I sort it) which makes it sort of confusing on my end. But truthfully, I'm sort of at a lost to what your trying to convey here.
We don't have any of those anyway. It's peak power that's the problem.
Well, the problem with going solar, is that it doesn't work at night. The point is that you don't need to over build the panel arrays to charge some systems that will later supply power when the sun disappears. This (space based solar) gets around the peak problem too because if you build for peak, your still saving the costs needed to supply power when the sun isn't at maximum or optimal placement to the panel locations as would be the problem with stationary earth based systems. Another interesting concept is that ability to beam excess energy to over or almost half of the world at one time. It may be limited to a particular hemisphere or portions of both, but it does really mean one panel array with the possibility of servicing the entire US with no need for a grid connecting them.
I'm sure there would be some power loss but but the east coast would just be entering peak about the time western Europe starts going off. If the obits are just right, they can't change where the power is being sent and service multiple population centers at different times and deal with the peak.
Anyways, I'm just throwing reasons out to how it can be better then earth based systems. A complete solution will likely need to employ both earth and space based as well as some other stuff.
*coff* What, you mean we're improving the environment by spewing massive amounts of toxic chemicals into the air with every launch? You do know what rockets are powered with, right?
Sigh... I'm sorry, I didn't think I would be getting responses from people who think cows farting is killing mother earth. The "environmental damage potential of them" is different in context and has completely different effect. But lets look at this from a "potential" problem. Getting enough land based solar panels installed is going to capture and reflect most of the sun light hitting the ground. At 5 times less productive, we are going to need 5 times as many panels just for the 35 percent of the day in which the sun is in optimal position, then on top of that, you need space to put storage tech, inverters and extra panels (at 5 times as many again) to supply power that can be stored to deliver on cloudy days, during the night and when the sun isn't optimal for peak production.
So lets look at it this way, we are talking about changing the entire ecosystem of large areas for the panels. We may even have a larger effect then damning up entire rivers for hydroelectric power generation. Of course there is the alternative of 200 million Coal fired powered power plants spewing particles in the air too that will most likely be used to cover the short comings of earth based solar. 200 million is probably an overly large estimate but lets say each space based solar array will, or will have the potential to replace 20 coal powered generating stations. Which is worse, the two rocket launches getting the panels into orbit and connecting them, or the 60 years of service of coal power plants doing the same things as the rocket launches "spewing massive amounts of toxic chemicals into the air" with ever single hour of opperation.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something less bad is more bad for the environment just because it's a different "bad". If we did that, we wouldn't have treatments or cures for a lot of illnesses and diseases. Some drugs destroy parts of the body, but when used appropriately, they kill the diseases and the body can recover from the damage the drugs caused. Imagine a world with Vaccines because injecting yourself with protein of viruses causes the body to react as if you had the disease and therefor makes you temporarily sick. But hay, if a rocket launch is bad compared to 20 coal powered plants or 10 nuclear power plants with radioactive wastes, then I'm assuming your priorities are in order.
Lol.. flamebait for saying it's not that there is more, it's that they are communicating more. Nice, I guess someone god mod points that I pisses off recently. I love this place, it reminds me of second grade in times like this.
We should be happy about Coal because it does with two issues that more people will agree on then the Carbon-fossil thing. It's locally mined so it will reduce foreign dependency on oil and it will create jobs inside the US.
On a science note, we can actually make coal from biomass so fusing the two together could lead to a renewable carbon neutral process. So discounting it as of right now, it only closing the doors to the future.
I'm not sure it's the most morons in the US, just the most who can be heard and seen by others.
When what we consider poor is a lifestyle better then the rich in some areas, we have a lot more opportunity for the morons to be seen where typically, they would be pushed off to the side.
Nope. Just left wondering what the hell your talking about. That happens when people makes comments with no backing in fact or reality and then use name calling not fact or anything referential as their justification.
Anyways, you have your opportunity to make the case. It's not my fault you chose not to or couldn't.
Schools have historically showed children how to use tools to function in the real world.
That's more or less what showing them to use MS office or whatever is about. However, I don't understand why we are insisting that Kids only learn to use a Stanley #2 Philips head screwdriver or a Stanley Hammer. There are many different screw drivers and hammers and some are suited for different purposed better then others. Currently, we teach the concept, the the tool, or we used to. Now it's the use of the one tool, we bring up all this crap about the complexity of switching tools as an excuse for not doing so, then MS comes out with a new office suite and everything you said was bad about switching tools is now automatically true about MS office too.
I think OSS should be part of the education. Knowing word processing and spread sheets is more valuable then knowing MS word and excel. using various tools from different manufacturers also treach thinking skills and all that crap. But there is no reason a student should be locked into one specific piece of software when there are alternatives that do 90% or more of what MS office does and 100% of what the student is required to learn.
Once the programs are installed and set up, it's almost the same to the user. If the concept of the word processing or excel or whatever is know, then it wouldn't really matter who version of whos software you have use.
I guess my biggest point was something along the lines of a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet the same. Well, that's enough of hacking Shakespeare for me, the point is that the political goals and motivations are still there, the tactics are changing and some new players jumped on. It never was about global warming in the Kyoto scale and it's not about global warming on the Cap and tax scale. Global warming, Co2, that while they may or may not be true, are just the tools to manipulate emotions and force people to accept those political goals.
It's all evolving, new players are coming around, but it's the same strategy even the beneficiaries are different. Take from one and give to the other. Except this time, they are attempting to hide the job losses and the lowering of everyone's standards of living.
Actually, it makes a lot more sense because the US congress never did ratify it.
As we can see, Kyooto was an absolute failure, even it's principle working guildlines proved to be more about money and redistributing it, and control of free people then anything to do with global warming.
Now, this is illuminated all over the world with Kyoto in that out of 180 some countries, only 38 have limits on their Co2. It's also showing that the little Co2 it does sequester is more or less due to forced outsourcing and the big lie is that the non-effect American economy crashed the world economy. Well, that the lie because the world economy was hanging on the American economy due to problems associated with Kyoto's implementation. When the American stock market dropped, a good portion of Kyoto limited countries saw just as much of a fall if not more.
Anyways, what makes this important and why Kyoto is entirely relevant is that the cap and tax or tax and trade or whatever they are calling Obama's oppression plan nowadays, is just a rose by another name. It's implementing the same failed concepts that have proven to do nothing to address the problem but make life hard on the poor, cause jobs to be outsourced to unregulated countries. It doesn't matter of you start calling Kyoto the Munich agreement, it's the same damn shit. Worst of all, it still being driven by fear of doom and gloom and statements like the polar ice caps are disapearing when it turns out to be sensor drift and reports like this one that says it actually growing not shrinking.
Fuck, if we don't even understand the shit well enough to make a factual statement, then why are we pussing around with failures of policy, and implementing a tax that will eventually force someone else to make some device that emitted less Co2 instead of just getting the same scientists around to create the shit and hold them accountable to it.
WRONG! What is (or should I say used to be) consider the US by the Constitution? What or who does the Constitution protect? THE PEOPLE. So any act by anyone or any government that breaks the laws of the Constitution or The Bill of Rights IS! and act of Treason. These documents protect The People and NOT the Government. These documents were actually put into place to protect us from our own government also. The guys that worte this thought about this. Go and read the letters written by Thomas Jefferson sometime he wrote a lot on the subject. Here one excerpt.
Crap like this is what makes idiots like you completely idiotic. In order to make your statement and demand that people who break or ignore the constitution be charged for treason, you yourself have to violate or ignore the constitution. Treason is legally defined in the constitution and it is limited to only in levying war against the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and nothing more. No one can be convicted of treason unless there is Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. You should actually read the constitution. I would suggest paying attention to article 3 section 3 just so you aren't violating or ignoring the constitution in your attempt to prosecute others who do the same.
I do like how you bring quotes from Thomas Jefferson into the mix to support your complete and utter failure to understand that which your attempting to claim is so superior. BTW, the constitution protects no one, it's a contract between the states to form a union with the federal government as the head. In it, it spells out what the government can do, what it cannot do, and to the same extent, the same or similar for the states. To claim it is to protect the people is nothing but taking advantage of your misinterpretations.
From this statement alone you can see the "Intent" of the Bill of Rights was not to protect the US Government but The People even from its own government. Maybe it time for that "last Resort".
Actually, if you read any of those documents, like the Franklin memoirs, Jefferson's, Hamilton's, and other letters the federalist papers and so on, you would realize the point or intent of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the governments. It has nothing to do with "the people" but the actions the government takes. The people were protected by these limits but they weren't concerned by them.
Man this is total bull shit. You need to go talk to a lawyer of somebody that stayed awake during the class on US Government. I can also tell you've never been served a warrant too or you would know the procedure.
One the original warrant not a copy MUST be presented at the time of serving. This warrant MUST show exactly what they are looking for. They can't touch anything not list on the warrant. It MUST contain the exact location this search is to take place. It MUST be signed by a Judge. A simple piece of paper is NOT enough.
Lol.. You need to go back to class. No where in the constitution does it say the original warrant needs to be presented, no where in law does it say that, there is specifically law allowing proxy warrants in order to allow confidential searches, and no where has the courts stated it couldn't be done. If you think different, then I suggest you point to it and explain how it's different. As long as the unreasonable test and/or warrant is satisfied, the constitution is satisfied and the courts are satisfied to it's constitutionality. Nothing needs to be presented to anyone in any specific form or version to do that.
Again, I suggest you actually read the Constitution and the amendments.
Did you ever read the Bill of Rights? I can't believe your stupidity on the subject. Right after they knock down you door they MUST present you with the original warrant you MUST read it
Sorry about that. I thought surely you'd find "Fascist Authoritarian" an honorable appellation. My bad, there.
And not only does it appear that you thought wrong, you most likely don't even know what fascism, authoritarianism or those two words put together actually mean. That's the problem with idiots like you. You hear a five dollar word and think your rich by grabbing it and spew it out instead of any facts.
I have no idea what "your" referring to. Do you mean "rejoinder", 'cause I'm not using that as a legal term there. But I don't think that's what you meant, since "rejoinder" just isn't such a long term that I could really give it a good "ramble". So what the hell are you talking about? "Constitution?" "Government?"
Here is the thing, and yes, I was talking about your use of "rejoinder". You cannot use it in a non-legal defined usage in this conversation because we are specifically talking about legal processes, legal constitutionality, and the government's implementation to it. When you attempt to use it in a non-legal definition like this, you end up effectivly saying 2+2=7 or something just as fucking stupid. Why, because everyone who reads what you say will use the legality context of the word due to the legal nature of the thread and end up interpreting it differently then you think. So stop using words you heard an actor playing a lawyer on TV say to make your erroneous points. And yes, you still haven't pointed to anything that backs your position up.
Sauce for the goose, eh? Oh, and since we're doing remote analyses of each other's mental disorders, what could it be that you've got that makes you so detached that you completely fail to read my sardonic tone while maintaining your air of smug superiority?
Dude, you got your head so far up your own ass, the room fills with a foul smell when you burp. You may see it as my smug superiority but the truth of the matter is that you simply cannot back any of your position up with anything substantial or even grounded in facts from real life. Trust me, this is a fault of you, not me or anyone else. You have had plenty of opportunity and specific requests to support your position, and all you do is float around with insults, misdirection, and confusion. The fact that I can back my position up doesn't make be smug nor superior, it just makes me correct. Don't confuse accuracy and being right with mental conditions, it's going to be you that's wrong every time.
Vehicle shapes are compared to a database for identification. This data is then relayed to the gunner. He can toggle through all of the targets to make the final decision.
This is sort of my point. In the longbow, the computer picks potential targets and a gunner makes the call. This is because I'm not aware of a computer system in existence that can look at the radar signature of a truck and determine the current use of the truck, military- humanitarian- a farmer going to market- or a soccer mom taking the kids to the park. One of the low tech gadgets we encountered when going into Iraq was small Toyota sized pickup trucks with machine guns mounted in the beds. Visual inspection was almost needed to distinguish between these and civilian vehicles and at times, that wasn't really enough.
If we look at some of the UAV footage of the rocket attacks in the last Israeli- Palestinian fighting, we saw common civilian vehicles mounted with launch tubes for the rockets hidden under neath truck caps and tarps. In some cases, you couldn't tell the different between rocket attack vehicles and what you would expect to see entering or leaving a farm or comming back from the lumber store to fix the hole in the wal create by the last close quarters fighting.
We may have systems that do a good job of detecting and determining the threats. I'm just not sure the error rates are low enough to take humans out of the picture. At least with a human at the helm, there is somewhat of a moral incentive to be right and protect "innocent" life which is very difficult to program into a computer. And when the failure rate on that is unacceptable, you can often change the human out to fix the programing where reworking the entire system would be needed without the humans. Maybe your right and know more about it then I do.
I though the relationship between the two would be such that they could be made to resemble each other in theory of operation. It seems like I didn't consider quite a few limitations (many of which I knew nothing about). It was more of a thought experiential for me and I appreciate your expertise in the subject.
However, I just interupted my extended fight with naval gazing and participated in a thought experiment where I looked at some of the countries who have signed onto but not ratified or implemented the WIPO treaties. Look at the contracting parties sections.
Anyways, the interesting thing is that the US ratified and implemented the DMCA laws pretty early in the game but the EU and countries like England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and so on who's population seem to think the US is pushing it's laws on them, actually signed on before the US has, they just haven't ratified it or implemented the laws yet.
To me, that just shows how much of a driving force the treaties actually are with some countries being more resistant to it then others. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting look into what drives the push of these type of laws.
Your right. However, is Taiwan attempting to pass DMCA stile laws? Taiwan may be the exception to the observation but look at where they are attempting to implement the laws.
This is not only interesting but an important note because when we look at who is making laws, or should I say which countries seem to be getting laws shot down with massive outcry of the populous at the last minute, we will see a lot of names who are signatories to the treaties but not enforcing them. Let me list a few along with when they signed and tell me if you can remember any of them recently being talked about.
United Kingdom 2/13/1997, Switzerland signed in 12/29/1997, ratified the WTC 3/31/2008 and is in force on 7/1/2008, Sweden signed 10/31/1997, Spain signed in 12/20/1996, Russian Federation joined by accession in 11/5/2008 and went into force 2/5/2009, Ireland, Israel and Italy signed in 1996-97, Germany and the EU signed on 12/201996 which ironically is before the US signed onto the treaty (4/12/1997) yet it is often claimed the US is forcing it's laws on other countries over this , Denmark 1997, and Australia joined by accession in April of 2007 with the treaty going into effect in July of the same year.
Now, I do seem to remember a few of those countries being in the headlines about DMCA style laws in the last few years. Two of them in the last two months. It's a distraction to blame it on Disney or whatever or to even skip the idea of how and why DMCA type laws are spreading because of technical variations in the way I presented my arguments. The treaties are at the root of the spread and they are more then just ancillary attractions to the fair.
That's the point I wanted to get across. I'm more then happy to be wrong about Taiwan or any other country. The problem is the pattern we are seeing and the pattern is connected to the treaties.
You are probably right in that one most likely wouldn't continue to exist with the other.
However, I'm also considering the idea that we may be invaded and those civilians might be our own trapped in occupied territory. It would be pretty, how do I want to say, "rambunctious" of us to use nukes on the state of California just to repel the Russians or China in a "Red Dawn" style attack.
There is also the possible scenario of Afghanistan meets Iraq with a little or Korea and Vietnam mixed in where we end up being a liberating or protecting force that meets resistance secretly funded by China or Russia in which it isn't in our interest to have collateral deaths.
Oh yes it does. How about that rejoinder, Mr. Know-It-All?
What about that rejoiner Mr, know-nothing? As the object of a warrant for search of a third party, you are neither the plaintiff nor the defendant or a legal responded and your participation is only to the effect ordered by a court, not any constitutional or other legal duty. Especially when the law specifically allows for it. The warrant isn't to search you, it's to compel you to search or allow the search on the government's behalf of a third party.
All you need to know is that you are wrong. How's about them apples? Don't like it?
Yea, it's pretty damn easy to make crazy and off the mark statements when you have no grounding in reality and prove it by saying "your just wrong, I can't list anything to show it so I'm going to call you names" as your entire justification. Here is a hint, I asked you to show where I was wrong and you were right, you rambled a legal term that you have no clue what means in a legal sense, you are wrong, you know it, and this isn't 4chan or some kiddy group where the biggest whining and insults trump the truth. Either back up your shit or shut up. I know you can't back it up which is why you are avoiding it altogether.
Find it in the constitution that we've got to tolerate fascist authoritarians like you.
I'm not sure why you have to act like it's my fault that your completely wrong. But if you don't know the answer to this, your a long way off from even being close to knowing what your talking about on search. Try getting a legal education the extends past pop TV shows. Anyways, here is where in the constitution you are specifically looking for..
Article six in the second paragraph says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article seven which binds the constitution with "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
If this isn't enough, try looking into article one then try the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.
I think all decent Americans know that when government gets too opaque, it is indistinguishable from dictatorship, you know, the kind you worship. Why, because if no one knows the "original limitations", then they don't really exist.
What original limitations? I specifically asked you to point to them, to back up your position, and all you can do is call names, reference a rejoinder outside the legal concept and state that is all I need to know. Your making the claim that something exists, now show it. You can't do that and know it which is why you are avoiding that subject/task. In other words, it's all in your head.
Except to the person who's seen them but won't reveal them. So you're left having to trust someone, someone who may or may not have the nation's interests above his own. And with no checks on his authority, he can do anything he wants to.
Oh, I get it now, it that way because you say so with nothing concreate to back it up. Well, in law, in constitutional rights, in this situation, you closing your eyes and wanting or wishing really- really- hard, does not make any legal or constitutional right that you may posses.
Ouch, you sure got us there. You've also stated nothing but your own assertions that everything you say is infallible. We are at an impasse, it would seem, smart guy.
I think your mental process is beyond a lack of ed
Here is the thing though, you are in no way entitled to see a warrant unless you are being prosecuted and that is specifically part of due process which could change along with the process.
The only think you are entitled to is the knowledge that the warrant and 4th amendment requirements have been met according to the law and tort presently in place. You may actually have a little more rights to it but you would have to fight for that right. If the law says person X can provide a statement to the effect of all necessary warrants and obligations are taken care of, then you have no right whatsoever at all to anything more then that. You have no legal or constitutional right to notify the target of the investigation or any right to refuse cooperation except what would be defined by law. You couldn't even sure the government for making you assist in tapping someone other then yourself.
Well, while I agree that the implementation needs work, it's the lack of "direction" the treaties offer and the quality of politicians nowadays generally means we won't get much more then they have to give. That does mean laws like the DMCA that doesn't really consider abuse.
Anyways, the treaties could clear a lot of the issues we are seeing up with a well rounded minimum set of "fair use" or "fair dealings" guidelines that allow for the environment to exist in which we see a lot of the abuses. Seriously, if the DMCA actually said Parody, sampling, fixing broken DRM or outdated technologies, using hardware for purposed other then what the manufacturer intended, and any tech designed to do that without creating an copyright infringement was acceptable, would there be so many people upset over it? Would there be that many abuses? Now if this was written into the treaty, then the laws they make would/could reflect that. The DMCA should reflect that.
As for the abused, there actually is more then just perjury that can be done. And the perjury in the slip that they certify isn't a "your breaking the law if your wrong" it's a "I have reasonable belief that what I claim is accurate". What this means is, if it is my copyright in question and it does turn out that your use is considered "fair use", neither of us are in trouble. But if it's not my copyright and I claim it is to harm you, then I can be charged with perjury. But people overlook the other aspect of that. If I do do something to harm you that is fraudulent, then you can sue me. It doesn't matter if the DMCA law doesn't say you can, what matters is that it doesn't say you cannot.
Of course that costs money and most wouldn't have enough to play. However, going back to the treaties, if it's worded to catch that, then the laws implemented because of them would reflect it.
I still believe the place to move is on the treaties. Canada seems to be in a pretty strong position to make a few changes with a lot of Hollywood movies and such being made there because it's cheaper and all. But on a side note, even the US or England or whoever could possible makes the changes. Especially if the people of those countries are behind them.
I think the first thing you need to do is list what you think is wrong with the ideas then actually determine the legalities of it.
In the US, we work from the poisoned fruit doctrine (fruit of the poisonous tree). This means that any ill gotten information poisons any information stemming from that and as such, can't be used against you in a prosecution. So at least if you are doing something wrong and they break the law to catch you in this way, your not going to have a lot of evidence against you.
However, I think you and Darby are both wrong in what is required.
t is not possible, under any conceivable set of circumstances, for such a thing to be legitimate, so pointing me to a judge who is willing to commit treason isn't helping your indefensible, cowardly, treasonous, attempt at a point.
What is treason? Do you even know what treason is in the US? Treason in the US consist of only in levying war against the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and nothing more. It's always a bad sign when someone starts off getting that basic principle wrong.
You're just demonstrating that you and some judge somewhere despise living in a free country.
Please explain this for me. How is that possible? Or do you have some misconceived notion that wouldn't hold water with if it was at the bottom of the ocean.
You should move to China or Saudi Arabia or Iran rather than stay here where you hate every decent thing this country ever claimed to stand for. Seriously, how did you get so broken that you'd rather work to destroy decent things instead of moving to where people like you hate the same things you do?!?
Really? What decent thing is being destroyed? HMMM??? Cause I don't think you know your ass from a hole in a ground on this. Your out here trolling and making statements about others when it is clear your completely clueless. I'm betting your going to claim something like the constitution says X or the 4th amendment. Here is what you are missing. Probable cause and a warrant does not mean you need to be shown them. It means that a judge needs to be shown the probable cause and it's within reason. The warrant can be sealed and hidden from you, all you need to know is that the criteria has been met and that you are obligated to comply. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be shown the actual documents nor is there anything that states you have to be shown a warrant. A simple piece of paper in accordance with the law is sufficient as long as the cops/officers/agents/whoever stay within the limitations of the original warrant. And if you are the subject of the warrant as in the person they are searching, you don't even need to know of it until you are physically detained or being prosecuted. Nothing in the constitution says otherwise.
Vile worms like you've absolutely proven yourself to be (absolutely, it's a fact) are the bottom of the barrel of our species. Please go die before you do more damage. You've proven yourself incapable of doing anything but harm.
Please get a damn education on what your pretending to know about. It's idiots like you that make us dumasses look stupid. Anyways, be specific in what you think I got wrong, and I mean point to where you have whatever right you think I'm attempting to take from you or what exactly you think is so damn despicable. From your post so far, it seems that it's little more then your own ignorance.
The obligation isn't as much ratifying it as it is economic advantages of being party to the treaty. Like I said, your fighting the wrong fights. But hey, don't listen to me and continue griping every 6 months or so when it comes back up again and again because politicians in Canada see it as somehow beneficial to get on board with most of the rest of the world every time the entertainment industry of any country brings it to their attention.
BTW, I didn't say Canada was obligated to them, I said many other countries were. This puts Canada at a disadvantage on some areas just like Kyoto and the convention on child right, puts Canada or the world court does for the US. You can kill off ever media company in the world and as long as those treaties are there, it will be brought up again and again.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem with this situation is ill/mis informed or the lack of informed people.
The DMCA laws extend directly from the WPPT and WCT treaties (wipo)and Canada signed them in december of 1997 but hasn't implemented them yet. This is actually where the US originally got the DMCA from too. Now you can argue all you want that the media companies cause the treaties to have the wording and all that, I won't dispute it. The issue currently on the table is that many different countries are obligated to pass something similar to the DMCA and the media companies or the US pushing for it is a symptom not a problem. To cure the illness so to speak is to get the treaties changed so the onligations of countries who signed them are changed too.
Slashdot Mirror
A "bit more" is a hard to define amount of increase. However, I submit the recent studies and polls that have made front page news at slashdot where a majority of the population couldn't name the vice president, speaker of the house or senate, and a few other things. Most of Slashdot could name those and a little more which would in my opinion, qualify as a "bit more" informed.
As for the American people going along with it, there were polls where the public agreed with the TSP use when it was critical enough to get bush reelected. Something like 51% supported the use of wiretaps without warrants between terrorists and sympathizers in the US. there was evena poll that showed 52% to 38% with 9% unsure, stating that Americans thought the US government "should wiretap mosques to try to keep an eye out for radical preaching by Muslim clerics"
I think his comment was appropriate, if not just at critical point in history to maintain the actions.
I'm not sure I would limit it to her type of Rhetoric.
It seems to be a problem stemming from more then just her side of politics and her type of bashing. For the last seven to eight years, we have heard the same BS claims against a number of people across the political isle. In short, associating it with Ann Coulter is a bit polarizing and leaving some with a hint of justification because they don't agree with her politics. It a far wider problem then that.
I'm going to assume you already know the answers to that. I'm just going to say what I find troubling is that the people who want to stretch any perceived threat against any perceived liberty also attempt to claim a sound knowledge of the Constitution to back their claims up. Just the other day, I had someone call me a liar when they said "any violation or misinterpretation of the constitution was treason" and I quoted article III section 3 for them. Then I suggested they better take another look at their opinions on things like the second amendment, the federalist papers and so on.
Anyways, it's specific, waging war against the united states makes an enemy and aiding and comforting them with two witnesses or a confession in open court is treason. Infringement on their liberties are not treason in any way and it doesn't make someone an enemy. To those who say it is, they should look at the infringement on liberties that ended slavery, prohibition, and almost all of the amendments after the tenth. I mean every amendment restricts something that was freely allowed (liberty) by at least some individuals except for the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments. Even the 21st amendment that repealed prohibition took interstate commerce in the effects of alcohol and left it to the states to discriminate against instead of congress where the constitution previously placed all interstate commerce regulations. The 26th amendment may be included in that exception because it denied states from denying the legal voting age to below above 18 but it still allows a state to set lower standards. If we really wanted to push the subject of attacks on liberty being treason, government health would be an infringement on liberty (because I should be able to determine my own health) as well as public smoking bans, trans fat bans, and many other things that quite a few people consider a good idea.
I don't think you were pushing that agenda but was in opposition of the idea. I just wanted to show how silly it could get. And to all those who want to support the idea that restrictions on liberty is treason, NO, it wouldn't be a meaningless strawman attack, it's the very concept applied with the definition of liberty.
Perhaps you could point to the post your referencing. I looked and saw several comments of yours in this total thread but none that seem to explain anything to what you posted or suggest what you were attempting to convey.
Well, unless your talking about the other post to me you made which ironically is after this part of the thread (probably how I sort it) which makes it sort of confusing on my end. But truthfully, I'm sort of at a lost to what your trying to convey here.
The two articles I references to the parent are here
http://inventorspot.com/articles/spacebased_solar_cells_could_bea_7507
And the one the article referenced.
I hope this gets us on the same page.
Well, the problem with going solar, is that it doesn't work at night. The point is that you don't need to over build the panel arrays to charge some systems that will later supply power when the sun disappears. This (space based solar) gets around the peak problem too because if you build for peak, your still saving the costs needed to supply power when the sun isn't at maximum or optimal placement to the panel locations as would be the problem with stationary earth based systems. Another interesting concept is that ability to beam excess energy to over or almost half of the world at one time. It may be limited to a particular hemisphere or portions of both, but it does really mean one panel array with the possibility of servicing the entire US with no need for a grid connecting them.
I'm sure there would be some power loss but but the east coast would just be entering peak about the time western Europe starts going off. If the obits are just right, they can't change where the power is being sent and service multiple population centers at different times and deal with the peak.
Anyways, I'm just throwing reasons out to how it can be better then earth based systems. A complete solution will likely need to employ both earth and space based as well as some other stuff.
Sigh... I'm sorry, I didn't think I would be getting responses from people who think cows farting is killing mother earth. The "environmental damage potential of them" is different in context and has completely different effect. But lets look at this from a "potential" problem. Getting enough land based solar panels installed is going to capture and reflect most of the sun light hitting the ground. At 5 times less productive, we are going to need 5 times as many panels just for the 35 percent of the day in which the sun is in optimal position, then on top of that, you need space to put storage tech, inverters and extra panels (at 5 times as many again) to supply power that can be stored to deliver on cloudy days, during the night and when the sun isn't optimal for peak production.
So lets look at it this way, we are talking about changing the entire ecosystem of large areas for the panels. We may even have a larger effect then damning up entire rivers for hydroelectric power generation. Of course there is the alternative of 200 million Coal fired powered power plants spewing particles in the air too that will most likely be used to cover the short comings of earth based solar. 200 million is probably an overly large estimate but lets say each space based solar array will, or will have the potential to replace 20 coal powered generating stations. Which is worse, the two rocket launches getting the panels into orbit and connecting them, or the 60 years of service of coal power plants doing the same things as the rocket launches "spewing massive amounts of toxic chemicals into the air" with ever single hour of opperation.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something less bad is more bad for the environment just because it's a different "bad". If we did that, we wouldn't have treatments or cures for a lot of illnesses and diseases. Some drugs destroy parts of the body, but when used appropriately, they kill the diseases and the body can recover from the damage the drugs caused. Imagine a world with Vaccines because injecting yourself with protein of viruses causes the body to react as if you had the disease and therefor makes you temporarily sick. But hay, if a rocket launch is bad compared to 20 coal powered plants or 10 nuclear power plants with radioactive wastes, then I'm assuming your priorities are in order.
Lol.. flamebait for saying it's not that there is more, it's that they are communicating more. Nice, I guess someone god mod points that I pisses off recently. I love this place, it reminds me of second grade in times like this.
We should be happy about Coal because it does with two issues that more people will agree on then the Carbon-fossil thing. It's locally mined so it will reduce foreign dependency on oil and it will create jobs inside the US.
On a science note, we can actually make coal from biomass so fusing the two together could lead to a renewable carbon neutral process. So discounting it as of right now, it only closing the doors to the future.
I'm not sure it's the most morons in the US, just the most who can be heard and seen by others.
When what we consider poor is a lifestyle better then the rich in some areas, we have a lot more opportunity for the morons to be seen where typically, they would be pushed off to the side.
Nope. Just left wondering what the hell your talking about. That happens when people makes comments with no backing in fact or reality and then use name calling not fact or anything referential as their justification.
Anyways, you have your opportunity to make the case. It's not my fault you chose not to or couldn't.
Schools have historically showed children how to use tools to function in the real world.
That's more or less what showing them to use MS office or whatever is about. However, I don't understand why we are insisting that Kids only learn to use a Stanley #2 Philips head screwdriver or a Stanley Hammer. There are many different screw drivers and hammers and some are suited for different purposed better then others. Currently, we teach the concept, the the tool, or we used to. Now it's the use of the one tool, we bring up all this crap about the complexity of switching tools as an excuse for not doing so, then MS comes out with a new office suite and everything you said was bad about switching tools is now automatically true about MS office too.
I think OSS should be part of the education. Knowing word processing and spread sheets is more valuable then knowing MS word and excel. using various tools from different manufacturers also treach thinking skills and all that crap. But there is no reason a student should be locked into one specific piece of software when there are alternatives that do 90% or more of what MS office does and 100% of what the student is required to learn.
Once the programs are installed and set up, it's almost the same to the user. If the concept of the word processing or excel or whatever is know, then it wouldn't really matter who version of whos software you have use.
I guess my biggest point was something along the lines of a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet the same. Well, that's enough of hacking Shakespeare for me, the point is that the political goals and motivations are still there, the tactics are changing and some new players jumped on. It never was about global warming in the Kyoto scale and it's not about global warming on the Cap and tax scale. Global warming, Co2, that while they may or may not be true, are just the tools to manipulate emotions and force people to accept those political goals.
It's all evolving, new players are coming around, but it's the same strategy even the beneficiaries are different. Take from one and give to the other. Except this time, they are attempting to hide the job losses and the lowering of everyone's standards of living.
Actually, it makes a lot more sense because the US congress never did ratify it.
As we can see, Kyooto was an absolute failure, even it's principle working guildlines proved to be more about money and redistributing it, and control of free people then anything to do with global warming.
Now, this is illuminated all over the world with Kyoto in that out of 180 some countries, only 38 have limits on their Co2. It's also showing that the little Co2 it does sequester is more or less due to forced outsourcing and the big lie is that the non-effect American economy crashed the world economy. Well, that the lie because the world economy was hanging on the American economy due to problems associated with Kyoto's implementation. When the American stock market dropped, a good portion of Kyoto limited countries saw just as much of a fall if not more.
Anyways, what makes this important and why Kyoto is entirely relevant is that the cap and tax or tax and trade or whatever they are calling Obama's oppression plan nowadays, is just a rose by another name. It's implementing the same failed concepts that have proven to do nothing to address the problem but make life hard on the poor, cause jobs to be outsourced to unregulated countries. It doesn't matter of you start calling Kyoto the Munich agreement, it's the same damn shit. Worst of all, it still being driven by fear of doom and gloom and statements like the polar ice caps are disapearing when it turns out to be sensor drift and reports like this one that says it actually growing not shrinking.
Fuck, if we don't even understand the shit well enough to make a factual statement, then why are we pussing around with failures of policy, and implementing a tax that will eventually force someone else to make some device that emitted less Co2 instead of just getting the same scientists around to create the shit and hold them accountable to it.
Crap like this is what makes idiots like you completely idiotic. In order to make your statement and demand that people who break or ignore the constitution be charged for treason, you yourself have to violate or ignore the constitution. Treason is legally defined in the constitution and it is limited to only in levying war against the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and nothing more. No one can be convicted of treason unless there is Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. You should actually read the constitution. I would suggest paying attention to article 3 section 3 just so you aren't violating or ignoring the constitution in your attempt to prosecute others who do the same.
I do like how you bring quotes from Thomas Jefferson into the mix to support your complete and utter failure to understand that which your attempting to claim is so superior. BTW, the constitution protects no one, it's a contract between the states to form a union with the federal government as the head. In it, it spells out what the government can do, what it cannot do, and to the same extent, the same or similar for the states. To claim it is to protect the people is nothing but taking advantage of your misinterpretations.
Actually, if you read any of those documents, like the Franklin memoirs, Jefferson's, Hamilton's, and other letters the federalist papers and so on, you would realize the point or intent of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the governments. It has nothing to do with "the people" but the actions the government takes. The people were protected by these limits but they weren't concerned by them.
Lol.. You need to go back to class. No where in the constitution does it say the original warrant needs to be presented, no where in law does it say that, there is specifically law allowing proxy warrants in order to allow confidential searches, and no where has the courts stated it couldn't be done. If you think different, then I suggest you point to it and explain how it's different. As long as the unreasonable test and/or warrant is satisfied, the constitution is satisfied and the courts are satisfied to it's constitutionality. Nothing needs to be presented to anyone in any specific form or version to do that.
Again, I suggest you actually read the Constitution and the amendments.
And not only does it appear that you thought wrong, you most likely don't even know what fascism, authoritarianism or those two words put together actually mean. That's the problem with idiots like you. You hear a five dollar word and think your rich by grabbing it and spew it out instead of any facts.
Here is the thing, and yes, I was talking about your use of "rejoinder". You cannot use it in a non-legal defined usage in this conversation because we are specifically talking about legal processes, legal constitutionality, and the government's implementation to it. When you attempt to use it in a non-legal definition like this, you end up effectivly saying 2+2=7 or something just as fucking stupid. Why, because everyone who reads what you say will use the legality context of the word due to the legal nature of the thread and end up interpreting it differently then you think. So stop using words you heard an actor playing a lawyer on TV say to make your erroneous points. And yes, you still haven't pointed to anything that backs your position up.
Dude, you got your head so far up your own ass, the room fills with a foul smell when you burp. You may see it as my smug superiority but the truth of the matter is that you simply cannot back any of your position up with anything substantial or even grounded in facts from real life. Trust me, this is a fault of you, not me or anyone else. You have had plenty of opportunity and specific requests to support your position, and all you do is float around with insults, misdirection, and confusion. The fact that I can back my position up doesn't make be smug nor superior, it just makes me correct. Don't confuse accuracy and being right with mental conditions, it's going to be you that's wrong every time.
This is sort of my point. In the longbow, the computer picks potential targets and a gunner makes the call. This is because I'm not aware of a computer system in existence that can look at the radar signature of a truck and determine the current use of the truck, military- humanitarian- a farmer going to market- or a soccer mom taking the kids to the park. One of the low tech gadgets we encountered when going into Iraq was small Toyota sized pickup trucks with machine guns mounted in the beds. Visual inspection was almost needed to distinguish between these and civilian vehicles and at times, that wasn't really enough.
If we look at some of the UAV footage of the rocket attacks in the last Israeli- Palestinian fighting, we saw common civilian vehicles mounted with launch tubes for the rockets hidden under neath truck caps and tarps. In some cases, you couldn't tell the different between rocket attack vehicles and what you would expect to see entering or leaving a farm or comming back from the lumber store to fix the hole in the wal create by the last close quarters fighting.
We may have systems that do a good job of detecting and determining the threats. I'm just not sure the error rates are low enough to take humans out of the picture. At least with a human at the helm, there is somewhat of a moral incentive to be right and protect "innocent" life which is very difficult to program into a computer. And when the failure rate on that is unacceptable, you can often change the human out to fix the programing where reworking the entire system would be needed without the humans. Maybe your right and know more about it then I do.
Thank you.
I though the relationship between the two would be such that they could be made to resemble each other in theory of operation. It seems like I didn't consider quite a few limitations (many of which I knew nothing about). It was more of a thought experiential for me and I appreciate your expertise in the subject.
Right on.
However, I just interupted my extended fight with naval gazing and participated in a thought experiment where I looked at some of the countries who have signed onto but not ratified or implemented the WIPO treaties. Look at the contracting parties sections.
Anyways, the interesting thing is that the US ratified and implemented the DMCA laws pretty early in the game but the EU and countries like England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and so on who's population seem to think the US is pushing it's laws on them, actually signed on before the US has, they just haven't ratified it or implemented the laws yet.
To me, that just shows how much of a driving force the treaties actually are with some countries being more resistant to it then others. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting look into what drives the push of these type of laws.
Your right. However, is Taiwan attempting to pass DMCA stile laws? Taiwan may be the exception to the observation but look at where they are attempting to implement the laws.
This is not only interesting but an important note because when we look at who is making laws, or should I say which countries seem to be getting laws shot down with massive outcry of the populous at the last minute, we will see a lot of names who are signatories to the treaties but not enforcing them. Let me list a few along with when they signed and tell me if you can remember any of them recently being talked about.
United Kingdom 2/13/1997, Switzerland signed in 12/29/1997, ratified the WTC 3/31/2008 and is in force on 7/1/2008, Sweden signed 10/31/1997, Spain signed in 12/20/1996, Russian Federation joined by accession in 11/5/2008 and went into force 2/5/2009, Ireland, Israel and Italy signed in 1996-97, Germany and the EU signed on 12/201996 which ironically is before the US signed onto the treaty (4/12/1997) yet it is often claimed the US is forcing it's laws on other countries over this , Denmark 1997, and Australia joined by accession in April of 2007 with the treaty going into effect in July of the same year.
Now, I do seem to remember a few of those countries being in the headlines about DMCA style laws in the last few years. Two of them in the last two months. It's a distraction to blame it on Disney or whatever or to even skip the idea of how and why DMCA type laws are spreading because of technical variations in the way I presented my arguments. The treaties are at the root of the spread and they are more then just ancillary attractions to the fair.
That's the point I wanted to get across. I'm more then happy to be wrong about Taiwan or any other country. The problem is the pattern we are seeing and the pattern is connected to the treaties.
You are probably right in that one most likely wouldn't continue to exist with the other.
However, I'm also considering the idea that we may be invaded and those civilians might be our own trapped in occupied territory. It would be pretty, how do I want to say, "rambunctious" of us to use nukes on the state of California just to repel the Russians or China in a "Red Dawn" style attack.
There is also the possible scenario of Afghanistan meets Iraq with a little or Korea and Vietnam mixed in where we end up being a liberating or protecting force that meets resistance secretly funded by China or Russia in which it isn't in our interest to have collateral deaths.
What about that rejoiner Mr, know-nothing? As the object of a warrant for search of a third party, you are neither the plaintiff nor the defendant or a legal responded and your participation is only to the effect ordered by a court, not any constitutional or other legal duty. Especially when the law specifically allows for it. The warrant isn't to search you, it's to compel you to search or allow the search on the government's behalf of a third party.
Yea, it's pretty damn easy to make crazy and off the mark statements when you have no grounding in reality and prove it by saying "your just wrong, I can't list anything to show it so I'm going to call you names" as your entire justification. Here is a hint, I asked you to show where I was wrong and you were right, you rambled a legal term that you have no clue what means in a legal sense, you are wrong, you know it, and this isn't 4chan or some kiddy group where the biggest whining and insults trump the truth. Either back up your shit or shut up. I know you can't back it up which is why you are avoiding it altogether.
I'm not sure why you have to act like it's my fault that your completely wrong. But if you don't know the answer to this, your a long way off from even being close to knowing what your talking about on search. Try getting a legal education the extends past pop TV shows. Anyways, here is where in the constitution you are specifically looking for..
I think all decent Americans know that when government gets too opaque, it is indistinguishable from dictatorship, you know, the kind you worship. Why, because if no one knows the "original limitations", then they don't really exist.
What original limitations? I specifically asked you to point to them, to back up your position, and all you can do is call names, reference a rejoinder outside the legal concept and state that is all I need to know. Your making the claim that something exists, now show it. You can't do that and know it which is why you are avoiding that subject/task. In other words, it's all in your head.
Oh, I get it now, it that way because you say so with nothing concreate to back it up. Well, in law, in constitutional rights, in this situation, you closing your eyes and wanting or wishing really- really- hard, does not make any legal or constitutional right that you may posses.
I think your mental process is beyond a lack of ed
Here is the thing though, you are in no way entitled to see a warrant unless you are being prosecuted and that is specifically part of due process which could change along with the process.
The only think you are entitled to is the knowledge that the warrant and 4th amendment requirements have been met according to the law and tort presently in place. You may actually have a little more rights to it but you would have to fight for that right. If the law says person X can provide a statement to the effect of all necessary warrants and obligations are taken care of, then you have no right whatsoever at all to anything more then that. You have no legal or constitutional right to notify the target of the investigation or any right to refuse cooperation except what would be defined by law. You couldn't even sure the government for making you assist in tapping someone other then yourself.
Well, while I agree that the implementation needs work, it's the lack of "direction" the treaties offer and the quality of politicians nowadays generally means we won't get much more then they have to give. That does mean laws like the DMCA that doesn't really consider abuse.
Anyways, the treaties could clear a lot of the issues we are seeing up with a well rounded minimum set of "fair use" or "fair dealings" guidelines that allow for the environment to exist in which we see a lot of the abuses. Seriously, if the DMCA actually said Parody, sampling, fixing broken DRM or outdated technologies, using hardware for purposed other then what the manufacturer intended, and any tech designed to do that without creating an copyright infringement was acceptable, would there be so many people upset over it? Would there be that many abuses? Now if this was written into the treaty, then the laws they make would/could reflect that. The DMCA should reflect that.
As for the abused, there actually is more then just perjury that can be done. And the perjury in the slip that they certify isn't a "your breaking the law if your wrong" it's a "I have reasonable belief that what I claim is accurate". What this means is, if it is my copyright in question and it does turn out that your use is considered "fair use", neither of us are in trouble. But if it's not my copyright and I claim it is to harm you, then I can be charged with perjury. But people overlook the other aspect of that. If I do do something to harm you that is fraudulent, then you can sue me. It doesn't matter if the DMCA law doesn't say you can, what matters is that it doesn't say you cannot.
Of course that costs money and most wouldn't have enough to play. However, going back to the treaties, if it's worded to catch that, then the laws implemented because of them would reflect it.
I still believe the place to move is on the treaties. Canada seems to be in a pretty strong position to make a few changes with a lot of Hollywood movies and such being made there because it's cheaper and all. But on a side note, even the US or England or whoever could possible makes the changes. Especially if the people of those countries are behind them.
I think the first thing you need to do is list what you think is wrong with the ideas then actually determine the legalities of it.
In the US, we work from the poisoned fruit doctrine (fruit of the poisonous tree). This means that any ill gotten information poisons any information stemming from that and as such, can't be used against you in a prosecution. So at least if you are doing something wrong and they break the law to catch you in this way, your not going to have a lot of evidence against you.
However, I think you and Darby are both wrong in what is required.
What is treason? Do you even know what treason is in the US? Treason in the US consist of only in levying war against the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and nothing more. It's always a bad sign when someone starts off getting that basic principle wrong.
Please explain this for me. How is that possible? Or do you have some misconceived notion that wouldn't hold water with if it was at the bottom of the ocean.
Really? What decent thing is being destroyed? HMMM??? Cause I don't think you know your ass from a hole in a ground on this. Your out here trolling and making statements about others when it is clear your completely clueless. I'm betting your going to claim something like the constitution says X or the 4th amendment. Here is what you are missing. Probable cause and a warrant does not mean you need to be shown them. It means that a judge needs to be shown the probable cause and it's within reason. The warrant can be sealed and hidden from you, all you need to know is that the criteria has been met and that you are obligated to comply. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be shown the actual documents nor is there anything that states you have to be shown a warrant. A simple piece of paper in accordance with the law is sufficient as long as the cops/officers/agents/whoever stay within the limitations of the original warrant. And if you are the subject of the warrant as in the person they are searching, you don't even need to know of it until you are physically detained or being prosecuted. Nothing in the constitution says otherwise.
Please get a damn education on what your pretending to know about. It's idiots like you that make us dumasses look stupid. Anyways, be specific in what you think I got wrong, and I mean point to where you have whatever right you think I'm attempting to take from you or what exactly you think is so damn despicable. From your post so far, it seems that it's little more then your own ignorance.
The obligation isn't as much ratifying it as it is economic advantages of being party to the treaty. Like I said, your fighting the wrong fights. But hey, don't listen to me and continue griping every 6 months or so when it comes back up again and again because politicians in Canada see it as somehow beneficial to get on board with most of the rest of the world every time the entertainment industry of any country brings it to their attention.
BTW, I didn't say Canada was obligated to them, I said many other countries were. This puts Canada at a disadvantage on some areas just like Kyoto and the convention on child right, puts Canada or the world court does for the US. You can kill off ever media company in the world and as long as those treaties are there, it will be brought up again and again.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem with this situation is ill/mis informed or the lack of informed people.
The DMCA laws extend directly from the WPPT and WCT treaties (wipo)and Canada signed them in december of 1997 but hasn't implemented them yet. This is actually where the US originally got the DMCA from too. Now you can argue all you want that the media companies cause the treaties to have the wording and all that, I won't dispute it. The issue currently on the table is that many different countries are obligated to pass something similar to the DMCA and the media companies or the US pushing for it is a symptom not a problem. To cure the illness so to speak is to get the treaties changed so the onligations of countries who signed them are changed too.